On 03/02/2015 12:23 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 03/02/2015 08:05 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: >> That was the impression I had too, which was why I was surprised. The >> last post on the topic was one by Robert Haas, agreeing with me on a >> value of 1GB, and there were zero objections after that. > > I didn't make any further posts to that thread because I had already > objected earlier and didn't have anything to add. > > Now, if someone's going to go and raise the default, I'm not going to > make a fuss about it, but the fact remains that *all* the defaults in > postgresql.conf.sample are geared towards small systems, and not hogging > all resources. The default max_wal_size of 128 MB is well in line with > e.g. shared_buffers=128MB.
OK, I don't think Robert or I realized that you were still not agreeing. I originally thought we should keep it small, but Robert pointed out that under your code, WAL only grows if you have high traffic. Patch attached in a new thread. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
